This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2017-03-21 10:27, Pedro Alves wrote:
Did you look for the history around these comments? I wonder whether these NULL checks still make sense here if we always reference the regcache's thread. The equivalent code in gdbserver doesn't seem to have them.All I know is that this is the patch that introduced them: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2003-12/msg00479.htmlThe PR 1048 seems to refer to a pre-bugzilla bug tracking system. Do westill have them somewhere?Here: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/DeveloperTips?highlight=%28gnats%29#Finding_Gnats_bug_entries_in_the_Bugzilla_database gnats 1048 + 7105 -> bugzilla 8153: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8153
Ah, thanks!
From what I understand, it's the use case where you attach to a processwhose main thread has already exited. If the patch introduced these NULL checks, I suppose it's because they were necessary back then to work around the Windows bug. I have no idea if they are still necessary, or if the Microsoft people fixed it.[...]In any case, the fact of whether the checks are needed is not impacted by the current patch: in the end, we call thread_rec with the same pid with which we would have called it before, so we should get the same result.You're right.I'll wait for your input on this before sending a new version.I don't have further input.
Thanks, I'll push the patch including the fixes and send the final version for reference.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |